3 ms·
And why not give copyright to the owner of the monkey? Both, the monkey and the camera are "ownable" and took part in creating the picture... I would even go a
by pvarangot 15y ago
And why not give copyright to the owner of the monkey?
Both, the monkey and the camera are "ownable" and took part in creating the picture... I would even go as far as to argue the monkey was more important than the camera. Should we also give copyright to the "owners" of the algorithms that took part in calculating the correct exposure for the photographs the monkey took?
And it's not like trap photography in that the monkey framed the picture himself, and framing is in itself a very important part of photography. Some would say even more than exposure that can (and was in this case, as I already pointed out) automated by the camera.
EDIT: redaction.
- techiferous 15y ago> the owner of the monkey These macaques live on Sulawesi in Tangkoko National Park. No one owns them.
- robtoo 15y agoSo the Tangkoko National Park probably owns the monkey.
- Someone 15y agoIn many countries, acknowledging ownership implies accepting responsibility. Chances are that they would have to provide the animals shelter in winter, wouldn't be allowed to let them be eaten or die of starvation, would be accountable for damage done by the animals, etc. So, I doubt they will call themselves the owners of the animals.
- electromagnetic 15y agoPlus many of the monkeys and animals in their park are likely transients that move in and out depending on the season. This would be like claiming ownership of cattle that wanders onto your yard.